MUHAMMAD DIN vs ADALAT KHAN alias and 2 others
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which acquitted the respondents of charges under sections 364, 302/34, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reversing their earlier conviction for the murder of the petitioner's nephew. The core legal question was whether the High Court's acquittal was based on a sound appreciation of evidence or if it suffered from misreading or non-reading of material facts. The Supreme Court observed that the prosecution's narrative regarding the abduction was doubtful due to an unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R. and inconsistencies between the F.I.R. and the ocular testimony regarding the motive. Furthermore, medical evidence regarding the time of death contradicted the prosecution's timeline. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's findings were neither perverse nor artificial and were supported by the record. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming the principle that where the prosecution's story is riddled with serious doubts, inconsistencies, and contradictions, a conviction cannot be sustained on mere suspicion.
- Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution's narrative regarding the abduction and motive is inconsistent and doubtful?
- Does a significant delay in lodging an F.I.R. without satisfactory explanation cast doubt on the prosecution's case?
- When medical evidence regarding the time of death contradicts the prosecution's timeline, is the prosecution's case weakened?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with an acquittal judgment rendered by the High Court?
- Section 364, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---This petition is directed against judgment dated 18-1-2002 of the Lahore High Court whereby, on acceptance of appeal filed by respondents, their convictions andsentences under sections 364, 302/34, 148, P.P.C. And award of life imprisonment have been set aside and they have been acquitted of the charges. Respondents alongwith six others were tried for Qatl-i-Amd of nephew of petitioner-complainant, namely Faqir Hussain aged 28 years. According to F.I.R., the occurrence took place on 19-9-1997 at 2-00 p.m. Whereas the F.I.R. Was lodged on 20-9-1997 at 4- 30 p.m. Version given in the F.I.R. Was that on 19-9-1997 at about 2-00 p.m. The deceased, Amjad Pervaiz-P.W.8, present petitioner and Haji Abdul Razaq were going on two motorcycles to spray their standing crops in the field in village Kohal Kalan situated at a distance of 10 K.Ms. From their village. When they reached near the Dera of Lal, they were waylaid by the accused persons, who abducted deceased-Faqir Hussain and also took away his motorcycle. Their case was that they approached the local police for getting a case registered for abduction but it did not pay any heed, therefore, they approached Lumberdar. It was after the dead body, without head, arms and legs was recovered from sugarcane field that they lodged F.I.R. Ocular account of the incident has been given by Amjad Pervaiz P.W.8 and present petitioner. Amjad Pervaiz is Behnooi of the deceased whereas the petitioner is uncle of the deceased. Trial Court, after considering the evidence convicted five of the said accused inclusive of the present respondents and acquitted the other three. Petitioner-complainant did not file any appeal against the acquittal of the said three accused. The five convicts filed appeal before the High Court, which has been accepted through the impugned judgment, against which leave is sought.
2. Petitioner has chosen not to file petition against acquittal of other three accused whereas he has selected the present respondents to file this petition.
3. Learned Judge of the High Court observed that there was no satisfactory explanation as to why no case was got registered regarding abduction of the deceased, which had made the whole story doubtful. Besides, notice was also taken that in the F.I.R. Motive alleged was that the present respondents had suspicion that the deceased had illicit relations with their sister-Mst. Qudrat alias Guddi, whereas P.W.8 when appeared as witness introduced a new story that the deceased had given loan to Lal-father of the respondents amounting to Rs,50,000 and when he was pressing for its return, they had done him to death. It was observed that if the relations of the two parties were so strained for the reason that deceased was being suspected for having illicit relations with sister of the respondents, deceased as normal human behaviour would not advance any loan to the father of the respondents.
4. We have also noticed that according to medical evidence, death took place 24 to 48 hours preceding the time of post-mortem, which wasconducted at 8-30 a.m. On 20-9-1997. If the time is calculated according to this opinion, murder must have taken place either on 19-9-1997 at 8-00 a.m. Or even on 18-9-1997 at the same time.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner when questioned, as to how in these circumstances, when serious doubts had been entertained by the learned Judge of the High Court that the very story of the abduction of the deceased was not stood proved and incident of murder being unwitnessed, respondents could be convicted and sentenced on mere suspicion, has no answer.
6. We have satisfied ourselves after examination of the record with able assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner that findings recorded by learned Judge of the High Court are neither perverse nor artificial nor based on misreading or non-reading of the material piece of evidence.
7. For the foregoing reasons, this petition has no merits, which is c accordingly dismissed and . #TBS . #TBE